Talk:Alice in Chains

Obit line, Italics

The obit line clearly belongs in the article about the person, not the band, and that article needed major surgery anyway to remove all the effusive nonsense, so I put it there. Also, album titles should be italicized in running text, but not is a bullet list discography. LDC

Why no italicization? That seems to be more common, e.g. Bad Religion, Beatles discography, Patti Smith. --Eloquence 23:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Filmographies and Discographies, that page would disagree, as do I. (I.e., we agree they should be italicized.). -- John Owens 00:03 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Prior name

Quoted from article: "Staley met and was joined by guitarist and song-writer Jerry Cantrell in 1987, renaming the band Alice in Chains, and, along with two of Cantrell's friends, bassist Mike Starr and drummer Sean Kinney, they began writing original material and playing local Seattle clubs" What was the band renamed from?

Alice 'n Chains. --jh51681 23:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

In actuality, it was Alice 'n Chainz, but no big deal.La Pizza11 22:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

AIC fan here (since after they disbanded), but for some reason i never thought to visit this article. thanks to all who made it a well written and informative blast. dug the chronology. SaltyPig 11:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Staley/Cantrell

Alice in Chains is definetly my favorite band, but I only wish that Jerry Cantrell would have allowed Layne to sing more of the songs in their catalouge (especially for lead vocals). While Jerry may have been a more consitent song writer and less dependant on drugs, it is Layne's exceptionally powerful voice that put this band over the top and Jerry's mediocre voice is not what the fans really wanted to hear in the end. TKforever 16:04, 27 March 2006(UTC)

You got that right!

Comparing the two, its pretty obvious that the better vocals were of Layne Staley anyday I feel this certain angst (sorry for the cliché) while I hear him sing,its probably the shrillness of his voice and the fact that its not a very often heard vocal pattern that gives hid voice this certain character which sets him apart. Or maybe I am just obsessed with this bands music!

Vijeth 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been listening to the band for a long time, and I always liked the combination of the two voices and particularly the great harmonies in a lot of the songs. It really sets Alice apart from the other bands of the same period.12.162.189.80 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pic

... looked a lot better large. Laszlo Panaflex 19:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of the Titans?

Anyone know anything about Alice in Chains opening the Clash of the Titans tour in 1991? I've heard that was a big boost toward their mainstream success. 72.40.53.121 23:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classic lineup?

the years on the "classic lineup" are misleading... the band was inactive for much of it due to Layne's health. For me, the "classic" (if there was one) AiC lineup was with Mike Starr on bass, not Mike Inez. With Starr they recorded Facelift, Sap and (most importantly) Dirt. With Inez they recorded only Jar of Flies and the self-titled release.

Dirt was their artistic peak according to most critical sources and, I would guess, is most popular with the diehard fans. Added to that, the Facelift/Sap/Dirt era was their most active touring period (although I guess Inez came in for the Dirt tour). I know I'm just being pedantic, but Alice in Chains were a very special band for me, and I loved them at a time when I was way too serious about music fandom. So it looks like I still take them too seriously.

I think perhaps it would be best just to refer to the different lineups as "original lineup" and "second lineup". Starr was an important part of the Alice legend even if he did fuck things up (and even if Inez was way better). Alice was one of those bands where you could take snapshots -- "classic" snapshots -- from various points of their career. You watch the video for Would? and it's Starr there with the intro and that is their all-time pinnacle. Or if you prefer Man In The Box it's Starr there again. The classic Inez moment was probably the Unplugged set, but man it was sad to see Layne look like that.

--217.158.132.130 03:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-metal

Due to the fact that Alice in Chains has no turntables, no rapping, and predates the "nu-metal" genre by a full decade, I can't see how anyone could seriously suggest that this band is nu-metal. They fit squarely into the grunge/alternative genre of the late 80s and early 90s. My conclusion is that the recent edits are a prank by someone who is just not a fan of the band. Rhobite 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed nu-metal. Paul Pierce Fan 23:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice In Chains is not nu-metal. I agree with Rhobite's comment.La Pizza11 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are nu-metal. Stop trying to defend them as not being Nu-Metal because they are.

If they truly are nu-metal, provide a source which verifies this. Googling "alice in chains grunge" comes up with 314,000 results. Googling "alice in chains nu-metal" comes up with 65,000. I check the first few pages and most are not actually refering to Alice In Chains as nu-metal, but are either: 1)Explaining the bands influence on nu-metal (without them being nu-metal, or 2)Talking about Godsmack not being nu-metal but instead being post-grunge (because of their obvious AIC influence). If you can provide proof, I will allow you to change the genre. Until then, though, they remain classified as grunge.La Pizza11 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please please do not insult Alice in Chains by calling them nu-metal. They were around way before any of the so called "nu-metal bands" and probably had more talent in sean kinney's drum sticks then in most nu-metal bands as a whole. Seriously, I can see the debate being Metal vs. grunge but calling AiC nu-metal is ignorant and nothing short of insulting Jason Scalia 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Chains is not a nu-metal band. If you can provide some proof, I'll agree with you upon the fact that Alice in Chains is a nu-metal band. Otherwise, every edit you make claiming they are will be reverted, and if must, we will have someone block you. Squid Vicious 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice that the people saying AIC is nu-metal are almost all IP adresses, not user names. The one supporter of the "nu-metal movement" who is a user has a vandalism message on his Talk page. Just an observation. La Pizza11 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you feel the term nü-metal is insulting to them because most nü-metal groups are bad (like Alice in Chains, however that's irrelevant) does not change the fact that they are a nü-metal group. You do not see people trying to change KoRn or Linkin Park's classification to something else. PaulPierceFan 23:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not nu-metal. Not only do sources not place them in that category, but Alice in Chains preceded the nu metal phenomenon by a good number of years. WesleyDodds 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother with this guy. I happened to check the code of the page, and in it the vandal lists the group's status as "Crappy" or the like. This link[1] shows it.

I listed them as crappy because they are. However, this is irrelevant. http://www.last.fm/music/Alice+in+Chains/+tags shows that they are categorized as nu-metal.

Yes, they have 8 votes for nu-metal, but they also have tags for genres they obviously are not, e.g. jazz, female vocalist, trip-hop, etc. That is not a valid source. La Pizza11 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice In Chains are not Nu-metal, but I can understand that many find them similar, as they probably influenced an good deal of Nu-metal bands. However the argument that Alice In Chains existed previous to the "Nu-metal movement" is not a good one, the music is what matters. Give a good reason, related to the music, as to why they're not Nu-metal so that everyone can see that it is so. I am also sceptic as to calling them grunge, they seem more of an alt. metal band lumped into that category simply for being contemporary to it.

Not necessarily grunge...

Since grunge was such a blanket term for the emerging seattle music scene in the early nineties, it's hard to really place any one particular band under this genre. Alice in Chains were definitely more metal but were classified grunge more because of where they were from and when.

Metal? I considered them to be grunge, but not because of where they were from. I classified them to be grunge because of their fusion of metal/punk/alternative influences. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Grunge

If someone would care to revisist their alice in chains albums, they will note that they are not grunge but metal. the reason aforementioned for being labeled grunge is widely held to be true, just ask some actual fans. and for that matter, soundgarden is also not grunge and to a lesser extent, neither is pearl jam. anyone care to comment? Lue3378 08:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though you definitely have point, I disagree withyou. Grunge is the term used to describe early 90 bands almost exclusively from Seattle that fused metal and punk. Grunge music describes a large amount of bands which do not necessarily sound similar, but do have similar roots and lyrical themes.La Pizza11 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe Alice in Chain's music would be best described as metal, but due to the fact they came from Seattle during the so called "Grunge Explosion" they would best fit under the "grunge" banner. Grunge was more a term used to describe a certain style of dress and locality as opposed to music. Most of the "grunge" bands did not sound at all similar. Alice in Chains was metal and belonged to the Seattle Sound genre of music, but history will always list them as a grunge band. Just my $0.02 on the matter Jason Scalia 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Chains started as a metal band but later became grunge. People used to give them shit for not being part of the Sub Pop grunge scene, although later they became friends with a lot of bands like Soundgarden. WesleyDodds 07:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to add that regarding the whole Seattle scene, Layne Staley was close friends with both Mark Arm of Mudhoney and Mark Lanegan of the Screaming Trees, both of whom are considered to be musical pioneers of the Seattle movement.

I think that all grunge bands are really alternative metal bands, as they play an alternative form of metal, fusing punk/metal and whatnot. as somebody said before, grunge is a label created by mainsteam record companies and refers to the clothes and the culture rather than the actual music.

Sweet Alice: bootleg?

Is this just a bootleg? [2] (look at the cover!) and [3] ("Sponge Records"?) say it is. --jh51681 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a bootleg. [4]. This shouldn't be listed here, or noted as their first release. -- ChrisB 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal-Archives.com says it's really a demo. 64.142.89.105 02:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal-archives is wrong. The demos are AiC demos, but Sweet Alice was not released by the band in any official capacity. The demos didn't see official release until Music Bank. -- ChrisB 03:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]